Hold a gamepad button or D-pad direction down for continuous input. On Steam Deck Gaming Mode, reorder controllers if the game ignores the virtual pad.
Hold a gamepad button or D-pad direction down. In Steam Deck Gaming Mode, if the game ignores the pad, ElfPad is not Player 1: open Steam > Controller Settings > Reorder Controllers while the game runs and move the non-Deck controller to the top.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| button | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses that the target game must treat ElfPad as Player 1, a real behavioral precondition, but it omits whether the hold persists indefinitely, whether any timeout or auto-release exists, and whether state is global across sessions. Partial credit for the one disclosed caveat.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The opening sentence is front-loaded and tight. The second sentence is a long, narrow Steam Deck troubleshooting digression that consumes more space than the core behavior and is not framed as a fallback caveat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter enum tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does plus a concrete failure mode. The main omission is the release counterpart (pad_up), which an agent needs to complete the hold/release cycle.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the single parameter is an enum of 19 self-describing literal values ('a', 'l2', 'up', etc.), and the description's phrase 'gamepad button or D-pad direction' correctly frames the two families in that enum. No added syntax or semantic detail beyond that framing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Hold ... down') and resource ('gamepad button or D-pad direction'), which separates it in spirit from pad_press (a tap) and pad_up (release). It never names those siblings, so the distinction is inferred rather than asserted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'Hold' implies sustained state, but the description never says to pair it with pad_up to release, nor when to prefer pad_press over pad_down. The Steam Deck note gives a diagnostic path only for the case where the pad input is ignored, not general usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.